Home arrow News arrow Opinion and Politics arrow The War on Terror's Legal Battle
 SOLUTIONS LIBRARY
cisco_cmrn2.jpg
NEW VIDEO! Transforming Ad Hoc
Mobile Communications
Find out how Cisco Mobile Ready Net delivers flexible mobile networks that provide self-forming, self-healing service for ad-hoc users, anywhere, any time. Watch Video…
NU.jpg
Online M.A. in Public Policy
and Administration
Northwestern University School of Continuing Studies offers working professionals an opportunity to further their graduate educational goals. READ MORE…
   




Click here
to view the
March 2010
Digital Edition

SPONSORED LINKS


The War on Terror's Legal Battle PDF Print E-mail
by LA Times   
Thursday, 04 February 2010

From the start, this page never believed it was crucial that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his four confederates be tried in federal court in Manhattan. Now the Obama administration apparently agrees. After an about-face by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- who once said the alleged architects of 9/11 should face justice "where so many New Yorkers were murdered" -- the administration reportedly is looking for a new venue.

That's fine with us. Although trials generally ought to be located where the crime occurred, there are plenty of reasons in this case to make an exception. The problem, however, is that President Obama's change of heart could embolden those in Congress who opposenot just a trial in New York but, more broadly, the president's determination to show the world that even accused terrorists will receive due process in this country. Obama must prevent his critics from exploiting the trial's relocation to try to dismantle his larger policy of bringing the war on terror under the rule of law.

Even before it was reported that Mohammed and the others might not be tried in Manhattan, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and several other Republican senators were savaging the Obama administration for treating Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly tried to destroy an airliner on Christmas Day, "as a civilian defendant -- including advising him of a right in a civilian law enforcement context not to cooperate -- rather than as an intelligence resource to be thoroughly interrogated in order to obtain potentially life-saving information."

Click here for the full story

 

 

Related Items

Nothing related

Past Issues